9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (1) TMI 273X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri V. Seshagiri Rao, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order (Oral)]. - This is a stay application filed by M/s. Super Spinning Mills Ltd. - TFO Unit, Coimbatore, against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) deciding a refund claim for an amount of Rs. 3,01,399/- as hit by time bar. After hearing both sides, after dispensing with pre-deposit, the appeal itself is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l filed by the revenue, against the said order, the impugned order was passed. 3. The revised amount was claimed in respect of Shipping Bill No. 1656469 dated 22-8-2003. Impugned order relates to this Shipping Bill. The lower appellate authority found that claim in respect of this shipping bill had been filed beyond the time prescribed in the Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 4. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the jurisdictional range officer to file the refund claim in the prescribed format. Relying on the case law in CCE, Delhi-I v. Arya Exports and Industries - 2005 (192) E.L.T. 89 (Del.), Ld. Counsel submitted that refund claim could not be denied merely on the ground that the same was not filed in prescribed form as held in the said order. He also cited a decision of the Tribunal in Myul Chemica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... directed the assessee to file the refund claim in the prescribed format. Accordingly, the impugned refund claim was filed for the credit relating to two ARE-1s. In the circumstances, it was not proper on the part of the Commissioner (Appeals), to have adopted the date of filing of the claim for the revised amount, which was part of the amount originally claimed, as the date of filing the refund c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
